Employee Motivation and its Role in Improving the Productivity ... - UMK

Article

Employee Motivation and its Role in Improving the Productivity and Organizational Commitment at Higher Education Institutions Jalal Rajeh Hanaysha (Corresponding Author) Faculty of Business Management, DRB-HICOM University of Automotive Malaysia, 26607, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia Email: [email protected]

Muhammad Majid Faculty of Business Management, DRB-HICOM University of Automotive Malaysia, 26607, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia Email: [email protected]

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business E-ISSN: 2289-8298 Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 17 - 28. June 2018 Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Business, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan Locked Bag 36, 16100 Pengkalan Chepa Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia http://fkp.umk.edu.my/journal/index.html Date Received: 20th September 2017 Date Accepted: 18th January 2018 DOI: 10.17687/JEB.0601.02

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Abstract – This study investigates the impact of employee motivation on productivity and organizational commitment in the higher education sector. The data is collected using an online survey from 242 employees from public universities in northern Malaysia. During the analysis of the data, SPSS and structural equation modelling are used for generating the results. The findings show that employee motivation has a significant positive effect on employee productivity. Additionally, the effect of employee motivation on organizational commitment is positive and statistically significant. Finally, the results prove that organizational commitment has a significant positive effect on employee productivity. These results carry extreme significance to policy makers in the education sector with regards to the importance of employee motivation if they intend to enhance organizational productivity and competitiveness. Keywords: Employee motivation; employee productivity; higher education sector; organizational commitment.

1. Introduction Nowadays, human resource management is regarded as one of the foremost significant issues for any organization to stay competitive in business markets. Acquiring the right employees and maintaining them represents the key challenge for organizations (Aktar, Sachu, & Ali, 2012). That is, an organization’s employees are the most valuable assets, and their management is considered to be the main challenging task. The main objective of human resource management is to ensure greater employee productivity and long term organizational performance. The improvement in productivity is indeed the main goal for any firm where all units or departments work closely to increase its performance through different management strategies (Bandara & Weligodapola, 2013). From the literature review, it appears that employee productivity can be evaluated based on the amount of products and services which are produced by an employee within a particular period of time with emphasis on quality maintenance.

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

17

Hanaysha & Majid

Many organizations are concerned with what they should do to accomplish high levels of performance through their human capital (Forson, 2012). For some of the organizations to enhance their performance, they believe that the productivity of employees can be highly affected by their motivation, attitude, and behaviour (Kawara, 2014). Forson (2012) illustrated that adequate motivational incentives for employees are among the best ways to manage as well as to reach organizational objective or mission with minimum resource usage and available human capital. On the other hand, certain issues of less motivation may arise as they affect certain workers who go to the workplace with different expectation, behaviours and outlooks, and become less committed to the organization. The motivation among employees plays an important role in transforming an organization. Thus, it is necessary for both employers and decision makers to identify the needs and concerns of their team members and further understand what drives them to be more productive (Rodriguez, 2015). In the prior literature, it is evident that highly motivated employees are perceived to be more performance oriented, satisfied, and highly committed to their work and organizations for a long period of time (Singh, 2013). Unfortunately, despite the significance of motivation and organizational commitment in influencing the productivity of employees, empirical research on this link is scarce. According to Swart (2010), to understand motivation building factors and the effect of motivation on employee productivity, a further investigation is needed. Moreover, Salleh, Dzulkifli, Abdullah, and Yaakob (2011) reported that there are few empirical researches which have examined the impact of motivation on the productivity of employees in the government sector. Considering the gaps mentioned above, this study is designed to empirically test the impact of motivation on employee productivity at public universities in Malaysia. The education sector in Malaysia is rated as one of the main sectors that significantly contributes to the development of the national economy. Additionally, there are few empirical studies which have intended to test employee motivation and productivity in higher education institutions, particularly in Malaysia. Prior researches also reveal that organizations may achieve their goals when their employees understand their roles and responsibilities towards the organization, and there should be continuous communication between management, leader, and employee to set performance expectations, monitor programs, and achieve good results. Today's economy demands organizations to invest in human capital as they are the most valuable assets for them. Additionally, the motivation among employees plays an important role in transforming an organization. The next section presents the literature review about employee productivity, employee motivation, and organizational commitment. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Employee Productivity Aiyetan and Olotuah (2006) described productivity as the amount and quality of output that an individual generates using certain inputs. The normal measures for productivity are evaluated according to the outcomes or tasks accomplished based on the hours worked. A similar definition of employee productivity was suggested by Syverson (2011) as the aggregate output that is achieved by an employee within a particular period of time and is evaluated according to its efficiency and effectiveness in reaching the desired objectives and job requirements. Ferreira and Du Plessis (2009) illustrated that the productivity of employees can be evaluated based on the ability to achieve certain desired outcomes that are in line with the job description of an employee in a particular period of time. Literarily, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

18

Hanaysha & Majid

employee productivity refers to the capability of making significant achievements which are determined by comparing the total outcomes with the expectations (Srivastava & Barmola, 2012). Overall, employee productivity can be described as the total output that an employee produces within a specific period of time. The degree of an employee’s productivity that ultimately leads to favorable organizational performance is a key indicator of organizational success that should be given greater emphasis as it measures the competitive power of an organization (Hanaysha, 2016; Soltani, 2016). Productivity is also one of the important factors that indicate the profits and possible opportunities for an organization’s success in business, a benchmark for employee’s reward, and a means of recognizing and pleasing the hard work. Productivity measures the efficiency of employing organizational resources to attain certain outcomes (Aiyetan & Olotuah, 2006). Other views about employee productivity were directed toward measuring it based on the amount of products or services that are produced by an employee within a specific period of time taking into consideration the used resources (Singh, 2009). Cohen, Fink, Gadon, and Willitts (1995) demonstrated that productivity comprises both economic and group performance that come from the ability to fulfill customers’ needs and expectations. In short, the productivity of employees emphasizes on two main dimensions, namely work efficiency and work effectiveness. Over the past years, several organizations have been trying to enhance employee productivity using different strategic techniques. Many scholars noted that the motivation of employees and effective management play significant roles in boosting their productivity and organizational performance (Aktar et al., 2012; Kawara, 2014; Scott, 2015; Swart, 2010). For this reason, organizational and employee’s performance have received wide interests and captured the attentions of various scholars recently. The ability of the management to motivate employees in an attempt to successfully reach their future goals is fundamental (Nizam & Shah, 2015). Particularly, employees serving in both private and public sectors need frequent motivations in order to boost their productivity levels and accomplish their tasks as desired (Muogbo, 2013). As the performance of employees is comprised of both motivation and capability, therefore, it is the responsibility of the management to ensure favorable employee motivation and provide the necessary resources for supporting this motivation (Katou, 2017; Moorhead & Griffin, 1998). 2.2 Employee Motivation The word motivation originated from the concept of motive which describes an individual’s drives and needs that are essential to achieve certain desires (Chaudhary & Sharma, 2012). Several definitions of motivation were seen in previous researches. According to Maduka and Okafor (2014), motivation refers to the willingness of an individual to put greater efforts to attain particular goals. Therefore, the concept of motivation stresses on an individual’s feeling of enthusiasm and attentiveness to be able to achieve his or her goals in an effective manner. Correspondingly, Robbins (2001) reported that the motivation of an individual represents the energies that could inspire, direct, and maintain or enhance his/ her efforts. Motivation was also previously expressed as an internal inner wish that exists within an employee to accomplish his or her tasks successfully, because such tasks are exciting and match his or her interests (Gouws, 1995). Employee motivation can be expressed according to the inner desire of an individual to exemplify his or her capabilities to achieve certain goals for an expected reward. Motivation is an art with a purpose to get individuals to work willingly, and influencing them to behave in a certain manner to accomplish their tasks (Maduka & Okafor, 2014). Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

19

Hanaysha & Majid

Certain scholars (Coetsee, 2002; Robbins, Judge, Odendaal, & Roodt, 2009) demonstrated that employees’ motivation at the work place appears through their willingness to effectively use their knowledge and skills to achieve the desired organizational objectives in relation to their satisfaction and needs. Motivation is one of the key issues for any organization either public or private (Muogbo, 2013; Zameer, Ali, Nisar, & Amir, 2014). Particularly, in order to drive the success of an organization, motivation has a significant role. Chintallo and Mahadeo (2013) revealed that all organizations, including the public or private sector encounter the issue of employee motivation. In the previous literature, it was reported that there are several key elements which can enhance the commitment of employees towards an organization. The factors included salaries and wages, job security, promotion, and bonus (Zameer et al., 2014). Rewards are also some of the key strategies to reinforce employees’ motivation to utilize their best capabilities to come up with innovative ideas that could improve the functionality of business and further increase organizational performance either financially or nonfinancially (Aktar et al., 2012; Kawara, 2014; Roos, 2005). As a result, employees will exert high levels of efforts and are likely to devote their full energies to accomplish given tasks when they feel that such efforts will be given rewards by the management. The concern towards finding what motivates an employee has several implications for both the theory and practice, and it has been noted in the literature over the past few years (Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000). This is because the effectiveness of skilled employees in most cases tend to be limited if they experience less motivation to perform their work (Aktar et al., 2012). Among the key business strategies that employers can implement to increase the productivity and motivation of their employees is to focus on a reward system on a continuous basis (Delaney & Huselid, 1996). Basically, this system was emphasized in the expectancy theory which states that employees usually tend to develop higher levels of motivation to accomplish their work duties well when they are assured that there is a positive association between their achievements and the received rewards (Aktar et al., 2012). According to Rodriguez (2015), rewards and incentives add value to employees’ achievements, motivate them, and energize their progress by making them realize that they have to earn for what they accomplish. The motivation will further encourage employees’ creativity and ensure their high quality of work performance (Kuranchie-Mensah & AmponsahTawiah, 2016; Osabiya, 2015). Previous researches showed that employee motivation was one of the key factors which influences employee productivity (Naomi, 2011; Osabiya, 2015; Singh, 2013; Zameer et al., 2014). Ramdhani (2008) examined the relationship between motivation and employee productivity in higher education context and found a positive link between both of them. They further indicated that employees’ motivation is highly correlated with the level of productivity. Moreover, Srivastava and Barmola (2012) demonstrated that motivation is very important for improving organizational commitment among workers, which resultantly leads to higher levels of productivity. In other words, committed employees tend to receive motivation at the workplace and be rewarded for good achievements. Therefore, motivation can be considered as the driver of employee’s productivity and organizational commitment (Al-Madi, Assal, Shrafat, & Zeglat, 2017; Bloisi, Cook, & Hunsaker, 2007). With reference to the literature review presented above, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: Employee motivation has a positive effect on employee productivity. H2: Employee motivation has a positive effect on organizational commitment. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

20

Hanaysha & Majid

2.3 Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment has gained significant research attention in past literature where various studies have emphasized on its consequences that include work behaviour and job performance (Hager & Seibt, 2018). According to Huselid and Day (1991), when an employee is engaged and involved in his or her work, this indicates that this employee is strongly affiliated to his or her job and feels satisfied about working in that organization. A number of behavioural symptoms such as learning, thinking, perception, motivation, and organizational commitment have been regarded as the foremost significant criteria to assess the behaviour of employees in an organization (Sohail, Saleem, Ansar, & Azeem, 2014). Luthans (2006) demonstrated that employee’s commitment towards an organization can be reflected through a positive desire to stay as an active member in it, a willingness to make sacrifices for doing the responsibilities and duties in the best way that they could be done, and accepting the values of organizational goals. Several definitions of organizational commitment were presented in the literature. Becker, Randal, and Riegel (1995) illustrated that organizational commitment reflects the strong desire in an employee to stay a member of a certain organization. Similarly, Northcraft and Neale (1996) thought about organizational commitment as the attitude of an employee which can be reflected through his or her loyalty towards an organization. They further indicated that commitment is a continuous process where organizational members reveal their interests for an organization and work hard to ensure its success and well-being. Colquitt, Lepine, and Wesson (2009) indicated that organizational commitment can be observed through the willingness of an employee to show his or her positive intention for maintaining the relationship with the organization. From the above definitions, it can be concluded that organizational commitment emphasizes on the personal motives of an employee to maintain the membership with an organization in an attempt to enhance its overall performance. Creating organizational commitment depends on several factors such as: communication, training programs, education, and reward management systems (Raina & Roebuck, 2016). Previous studies revealed that organizational commitment plays an important role in affecting employees’ productivity. Certain scholars (Atmojo, 2015; Buttner, Buttner, Lowe, & Lowe, 2017; Khan, Ziauddin, & Ramay, 2011) examined the link between organizational commitment and the performance of employees and found a significant positive association between both variables. Furthermore, Rizal, Idrus, Djumahir, and Mintarti (2014) confirmed that organizational commitment had a significant positive effect on employee performance. From the above discussion, it can be suggested that organizational commitment is a very important theme of research that reflects the strength of an organization through its human resources. High levels of organizational commitment prove the success of an organization in managing its human resources, and this ultimately would result in improved performance and high productivity of employees. Consequently, the following hypothesis is postulated: H3: Organizational commitment has a positive effect on employee productivity.

3. Methodology This study adopted the quantitative methodology in which the data were gathered through an online survey method. The participants of this study included administrative as well as academic staff of public universities in northern Malaysia. A total of 870 questionnaires Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

21

Hanaysha & Majid

were administered to the employees through email. To ensure that the minimum required sample size is obtained, the questionnaires were administered to several employees after obtaining the lists of their emails. This process was done to obtain the required sample size. According to Yoldas (2012), using the survey technique to collect information from larger samples is more appropriate and robust than adopting the interviews. Since the questionnaire instrument allows for reaching a big number of populations, the online surveys allow the researcher to reach them at a minimum cost. The constructs of this study were measured using scales adapted from previous literature. Specifically, a seven-item scale to measure employee motivation was taken from Curtis and Severt (2009). To measure employee productivity, a four-item scale was taken from the study of Lee and Brand (2010). The aforementioned scales were selected due to their acceptable Cronbach’s alpha reliability that was more than 0.70. Finally, a five-item scale was used to measure organizational commitment and it was taken from the study of Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). All of the items were measured using the five-point Likert scale which ranges between strongly disagree and strongly agree. After designing the final questionnaire, three experts from higher education institutions were asked to check and validate it before the initial distribution took place. The responses from all participants were inserted into the SPSS after being received and then analyzed through the structural equation modelling (SEM) using AMOS 18. Several tests such as reliability, factor analysis, validity, and regression analysis were conducted to generate the results of this study and to test the hypotheses. During data analysis using AMOS, the measurement model incorporating all items was drawn to test the factor loadings using the confirmatory factor analysis. Subsequently, the structural model was developed to ensure the goodness of model fit and verify the presented hypotheses. The advantages of using the structural equation modelling include the possibility to generate greater accuracy and reliability for the results. As stated by Chin (1998), SEM is one of the powerful statistical methods and is characterized by flexibility in modelling the associations between a set of variables. 4. Result The findings indicate that out of 870 online questionnaires that were administered to the participants, only 242 were received from them. The descriptive analysis indicated that 65 (26.9%) of the respondents are male, whereas females accounted for 177 (73.1%). It also showed that the majority of respondents (50%) represented the age cluster of 26 - 35 years old, 7 (2.9%) came under the age cluster which ranged from 18 to 25 years, while 40.5% are aged between 36 and 45 years old. Additionally, those whose ages ranged from 46 years old or more represented 6.6% of the overall response. On education profile, this study has 36 (14.9%) participants who hold a diploma certificate, 79 (32.6%) have an undergraduate certificate, 125 (51.7%) have certificates of a postgraduate degree, and 2 (0.8%) have other categories of professional certificates. It was also found that most of the participants (69%) have a work experience of more than 5 years in their workplaces. Testing the reliability of instrument is very important in order to confirm the internal consistency among items. However, in this study, Cronbach’s alpha was employed because it is the most commonly used method for calculating the reliability of constructs using a set of items. The results revealed that all values of Cronbach’s alpha were acceptable as they Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

22

Hanaysha & Majid

ranged from 0.774 to 0.871. Specifically, the construct of employee motivation achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.774. Moreover, organizational commitment and employee productivity achieved high Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.871 and 0.748, respectively. According to these findings, it can be said that the assumptions of reliability on all constructs are fulfilled as the Cronbach’s alpha values are greater than 0.70 based on the suggestions of Pallant (2010). To ensure the existence of convergent validity among items, factor analyses were examined using AMOS 18. This process was done to confirm that each unit of items are in fact measuring the constructs that represents them. Furthermore, factor analyses were conducted to confirm content validity. Since the measurement scales for the variables were taken from past researches, confirmatory factor analysis is more favored than exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The process for testing and executing factor analysis was completed on AMOS through the measurement model which included the measurement items of all constructs. The results showed that the loadings of all items ranged between 0.48 and 0.92 (details are shown in Appendix A). From these findings, it can be concluded that most of the selected items surpassed the minimum required value of 0.5 in line with the recommendations of Hair el al. (2010). Overall, the results of factor analysis are satisfactory for all of the constructs. After achieving a reasonable fit for factor loadings on all items which was confirmed using the measurement model, the next step was to draw and estimate the final structural model. This process was done to ensure an acceptable model fit through several fit values. Overall, the findings showed that the final structural model established a reasonable fit to the current data as p-value is significant (p=0.000). Moreover, other fit indicators (CMIN = 138.404, AGFI = 0.885, df = 62, GFI = 0.922, CFI = 0.935, TLI = 0.918, and RMSEA = 0.072) were employed in order to ascertain model fit assumptions. To verify the hypotheses which were presented earlier, the results were then generated from the regression table of the structural model’s output. The results presented in Table 1 indicate that employee motivation has a positive effect on employee productivity (β = 0.772, tvalue = 8.056, p < 0.05), thus, the first hypothesis is confirmed. Moreover, the findings supported the second hypothesis which stated that employee motivation has a positive effect on organizational commitment (β = 0.479, t-value = 4.952, p < 0.05). Finally, the findings revealed that organizational commitment has a significant positive effect on employee productivity (β = 0.296, t-value = 2.146, p < 0.05), therefore, the third hypothesis is supported. Table 1. Results of the Hypotheses Testing Hypothesized Effect

Std. Estimate 0.772

S.E.

C.R.

P

Support

0.069

8.056

***

Yes

H1:

Employee motivation has a positive effect on employee productivity.

H2:

Employee motivation has a positive effect on organizational commitment

0.479

0.097

4.952

***

Yes

H3:

Organizational commitment has a positive effect on employee productivity

0.319

0.138

2.146

0.032

Yes


23

Hanaysha & Majid

5. Conclusion and Discussion The main objective of this paper was to investigate the effect of employee motivation on productivity and organizational commitment in the higher education sector. The results revealed that employee motivation has a significant positive effect on employee productivity. This finding was confirmed by certain researchers who established that motivation was a significant factor for predicting employee productivity (Korir & Kipkebut, 2016). Masoud and Camal (2010) studied the effect of motivation on employee productivity and reported that motivation was one of the key contributors to the productivity of employees. Srivastava and Barmola (2012) and Emeka, Amaka, and Ejim (2015) added that when an employee is highly motivated, his work outcomes would result in increasing organizational productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency. Similarly, Kawara (2014) declared that motivational rewards provide a feeling of motivation among employees, and thus, increase their productivity levels, which provide further implications for organizational growth and competitiveness. The practical implications from this finding suggests that the decision makers in higher learning institutions should give a prime attention to employees’ issues and ensure their work effectiveness by providing incentives and rewards for good achievements. This as a result will encourage them to become more productive and creative in doing their jobs. Furthermore, the findings of this study provide empirical evidence that motivation has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment and match with several previous researches which confirmed employee motivation as a key predictor of organizational commitment (Rafique, Tayyab, Kamran, & Ahmed, 2014; Rizal et al., 2014; Siburian, 2013). According to Alhaji and Yusoff (2012), there are different ways for enhancing employees’ work motivation and organizational commitment, and the effectiveness of such ways may differ according to the nature of the job, organization, and from one employee to another. They further indicated that increased commitment depends on the efficiency of the management in handling human resource issues at the workplace. The outcomes of this study also showed that organizational commitment has a significant positive effect on employee productivity. The result was confirmed by past literature (Khan et al., 2011; Rizal et al., 2014) which reported similar conclusions. Therefore, organizations should establish reward systems for productive employees either financially or non-financially in order to stimulate employees’ productivity and enhance their loyalty and commitment to the organization. Overall, the results of this paper reveal that human resource managers should put prime emphasis towards increasing work motivation of employees and ensuring their job satisfaction (Farouk, Abu Elanain, Obeidat, & Al-Nahyan, 2016). Certain limitations exist in this paper which would open some avenues for future researches. First, the data in this study were only collected from the employees of public universities in the northern part of Malaysia. Thus, future researches should examine the constructs used in this study in different types and contexts of industries to gain better insights on the role of motivation in affecting employee productivity and organizational commitment. Second, this study investigated only one predictor of employee productivity and organizational commitment; therefore, future studies may test other variables such as career development and work environment. Moreover, future research should seek to develop more complete measures of employee motivation and ways to enhance employees’ motivation by tapping multiple dimensions of their job quality. Finally, this study was conducted using a quantitative survey; thus, future researches may utilize qualitative methods that would provide further confidence to the generalizability of the results. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

24

Hanaysha & Majid

Appendix A: Measurement Scales of Final Items Code

Construct/ Item

Factor Loading

Employee Motivation (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.774) MOT1 MOT2 MOT3 MOT4 MOT6 MOT7

My institution provides me with job security. I receive supervisor’s help with my personal problems. In my institution, I get good wages. Working in this institution is interesting. The management of the institution shows gratitude for a job well done. I receive monetary incentives for a job well done.

0.69 0.65 0.56 0.60 0.69 0.75

Organizational Commitment (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.871) OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5

I talk positively about this institution to others. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this institution. I really care about the status of this institution. For me, this is one of the best institutions for which to work.

0.77 0.90 0.73 0.77

Employee Productivity (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.748) PROD2 PROD3 PROD4

I accomplish tasks quickly and efficiently. I have a high standard of task accomplishment. My work outcomes are of high quality.

0.72 0.82 0.68

Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding No Funding Acknowledgement N/A References Alhaji, I. A., & Yusoff, W. F. (2012). Does motivational factor influence organizational commitment and effectiveness? A review of literature. Journal of Business Management and Economics, 3(1), 1-9. Al-Madi, F. N., Assal, H., Shrafat, F., & Zeglat, D. (2017). The impact of employee motivation on organizational commitment. European Journal of Business and Management, 9(15), 134-145. Aiyetan, A. O., & Olotuah, A. O. (2006). Impact of motivation on workers’ productivity in the Nigerian construction industry. Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6. Aktar, S., Sachu, M. K., & Ali, M. E. (2012). The impact of rewards on employee performance in commercial banks of Bangladesh: An empirical study. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 6(2), 9-15. Atmojo, M. (2015). The influence of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee performance. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 5(2), 113-128. Bandara, K. M. N. S., & Weligodapola, M. (2013). A study on the relationship between labour productivity and motivation; with special reference to Hirdaramani Group of Companies, 1, 712. Becker, T. E., Randall, D. M., & Riegel, C. D. (1995). The multidimensional view of commitment and the theory of reasoned action: A comparative evaluation. Journal of Management, 21(4), 617-638. Bloisi, W., Cook, C. W., & Hunsaker, P. L. (2007). Management and organisational behaviour. McGraw-Hill, 169-208. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business

25

Hanaysha & Majid

Buttner, E. H., Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Lowe, K. B. (2017). The relationship between perceived pay equity, productivity, and organizational commitment for US professionals of color. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(1), 73-89. Chaudhary, N., & Sharma, B. (2012). Impact of employee motivation on performance (productivity) in private organization. International Journal of Business Trends and Technology, 2(4), 29-35. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336. Chintalloo, S., & Mahadeo, J. D. (2013). Effect of motivation on employees’ work performance at Ireland Blyth Limited. In proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference Imperial College, London, UK, 8-9. Coetsee, L. D. (2011). Peak performance and productivity: A practical guide for the creation of a motivating climate. Andcork Publishers. Cohen, A. R., Fink, S. L., Gadon, H., & Willitts R. D. (1995). Effective behaviour in organizations: Cases, concepts and student experiences (6th Edition). USA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Colquitt, J., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2009). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 169-174. Curtis, C. R., Upchurch, R. S., & Severt, D. E. (2009). Employee motivation and organizational commitment: A comparison of tipped and non-tipped restaurant employees. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 10(3), 253-269. Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969. Emeka, N., Amaka, O., & Ejim, E. P. (2015). The effect of employee motivation on organizational performance of selected manufacturing firms in Enugu state. World Journal of Management and Behavioural Studies, 3(1), 1-8. Farouk, S., Abu Elanain, H. M., Obeidat, S. M., & Al-Nahyan, M. (2016). HRM practices and organizational performance in the UAE banking sector: The mediating role of organizational innovation. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), 773791 Ferreira, A., & Du Plessis, T. (2009). Effect of online social networking on employee productivity. South African Journal of Information Management, 11(1), 1-11. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London-Thousand Oaks- New Delhi: Sage publications. Forson, J. E. M. (2012). Impact of motivation on the productivity of employees at GTBank Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Science and Technology). Gouws, A. (1995). The relationship between motivation and job satisfaction of a group of information specialists. M. Bib. Unpublished M. Bib. dissertation. Rand Afrikaans University. Hager, M., & Seibt, T. (2018). The relationship between work-related behavior and experience patterns and organizational commitment. In Eurasian Business Perspectives (pp. 291-303). Springer, Cham. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analyisis (7th edition), Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hanaysha, J. (2016). Testing the effects of employee empowerment, teamwork, and employee training on employee productivity in higher education sector. International Journal of Learning and Development, 6(1), 164-178. Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organisational outcomes. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 319-339. Huselid, M. A., & Day, N. E. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover: A substantive and methodological analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 380. Katou, A. A. (2017). How does human resource management influence organisational performance? An integrative approach based analysis. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(6).


26

Hanaysha & Majid

Kawara, P. (2014). Effects of reward systems on employee productivity in Catholic University of Eastern Africa. International Journal of Recent Research in Commerce Economics and Management, 1(2), 1-4. Khan, M. R., Ziauddin, J. F., & Ramay, M. I. (2010). The impacts of organizational commitment on employee job performance. European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(3), 292-298. Korir, I., & Kipkebut, D. (2016). The effect of reward management on employees’ commitment in the universities in Nakuru County-Kenya. Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(4), 3748. Kuranchie-Mensah, E. B., & AmponsahTawiah, K. (2016). Employee motivation and work performance: A comparative study of mining companies in Ghana. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(2), 255-309. Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics, 53(3), 324-335. Luthans, F. (2006). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw Hill International Editions. Maduka, C. E., & Okafor, O. (2014). Effect of motivation on employee productivity: A study of manufacturing companies in Nnewi. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, 2(7), 137-147. Masoud, I., & Camal, G. (2010). Effect of motivation on the productivity of the employees of sport departments of Ardabil province. World Journal of Sport Sciences, 3(4), 325-328. Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations (5th edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247. Muogbo, U. S. (2013). The impact of employee motivation on organisational performance (A Study of some selected firms in Anambra state Nigeria). The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 2(7), 70-80. Naomi, A. L. (2011). Motivational strategies and their impact on productivity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Science and Technology). Northcraft, T. & Neale, H. (1996). Organisation behaviour. London: Prentice-Hall. Nizam, K., & Shah, F. M. (2015). Impact of employee motivation on organizational performance in oil and gas sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research (IJMSR), 3(12), 7-15. Osabiya, B. J. (2015). The effect of employees’ motivation on organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 7(4), 62-75. Pallant, J. F. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis with SPSS. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS: Survival Manual (4th edition), Berkshire: Open University Press. Rafique, A., Tayyab, M. S. B., Kamran, M., & Ahmed, N. M. (2014). A Study of the factors determining motivational level of employees working in public sector of Bahawalpur (Punjab, Pakistan). International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4(3), 19-34. Ramdhani, J. (2008). Motivation and perceived productivity at a merged Higher Education Institution (Doctoral dissertation, Durban University of Technology). Raina, R., & Roebuck, D. B. (2016). Exploring cultural influence on managerial communication in relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the employees’ propensity to leave in the insurance sector of India. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 97-130. Rizal, M., Idrus, M. S., Djumahir, & Mintarti R. (2014). Effect of compensation on motivation, organizational commitment and employee performance (Studies in local revenue management in Kendari City). International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 3(2), 64-79. Robbins, S. (2001). Managing today. Prentice Hall: New Jersey. Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., Odendaal, A., & Roodt, G. (2009). Organisational behaviour: Global and South African perspectives. Cape Town. Rodriguez, A. (2015). Motivation in action: How motivation can make employees more productive. Retrieved on 15 September 2015 from: https://www.imindq.com/blog/motivationin-action-how-motivation-can-make-employees-more-productive-part-2


27

Hanaysha & Majid

Roos, W. (2005). The relationship between employee motivation, job satisfaction and corporate culture: empirical research (Master Dissertation, University of South Africa). Salleh, F., Dzulkifli, Z., Abdullah, W. A. W., & Yaakob, N. H. M. (2011).The effect of motivation on job performance of state government employees in Malaysia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(4), 147-154. Scott, S. (2015). Motivation & productivity in the workplace. Retrieved on 13 September, 2015 from: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/motivation-productivity-workplace-10692.html Siburian, T. A. (2013). The effect of interpersonal communication, organizational culture, job satisfaction, and achievement motivation to organizational commitment of state high school teacher in the district Humbang Hasundutan, North Sumatera, Indonesia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(12), 247-264. Singh, P. (2013). Increasing productivity with motivation in the workplace. National Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 2(6), 27-32. Sohail, R. S., Saleem, S., Ansar, S., & M Azeem, A. (2014). Effect of work motivation and organizational commitment on job satisfaction: (A Case of education industry in Pakistan). Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 14(6), 41-46. Soltani, M. K. (2016). The relationship between quality of work life and employee productivity general administration of sport and youth Sistan and Baluchestan Province. The Social Sciences, 11(10), 2642-2647. Srivastava, S. K., & Barmola, K. C. (2012). Role of motivation in higher productivity. Management Insight, 7(1), 88-99. Swart, R. (2010). The influence of employee motivation on productivity in a merged real estate environment/R. Swart (Master Dissertation, North-West University). Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), 326365. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Yoldas, S. (2012). A Research about buying behaviours of online customers: Comparison of Turkey with UK (Master’s Dissertation, University of Roehampton). Zameer, H., Ali, S., Nisar, W., & Amir, M. (2014). The impact of the motivation on the employee’s performance in beverage industry of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 4(1), 293-298.


28